skunk-works-digest Sunday, March 29 1998 Volume 07 : Number 021 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Unsubscribe *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 21:47:51 -0700 From: Darin Polk Subject: Unsubscribe skunk-works-digest wrote: > > skunk-works-digest Sunday, March 29 1998 Volume 07 : Number 020 > > Index of this digest by subject: > *************************************************** > A-26/B-26 Invader > Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito > Ramblings... > Re: Dr. David Baker > Re: Dr. David Baker > Re: Dr. David Baker > In My Humble Opinion: > Andreas. > F-117 designation > Re: F-117 designation > *************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:19:53 -0500 (EST) > From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl > Subject: A-26/B-26 Invader > > The Martin B-26 Marauder was a very fast (for its time), twin-engined medium > bomber, whose sometimes difficult low speed flight and landing characteristics > earned it the nickname 'Widowmaker'. > > The Douglas A-26 Invader was a twin-engined light attack bomber, basically > a completely redesigned Douglas A-20 Havoc, of which the following versions > were built: > > XA-26-DE (1 built, USAAF Serial: '41-19504'); > XA-26A-DE (1 built, USAAF Serial: '41-19505'); > XA-26B-DE (1 built, USAAF Serial: '41-19588'); > A-26B-DL (1174 built, USAAF Serials: '41-39100' to '41-39151', '41-39153' > to '41-39192', '41-39194', '41-39196' to '41-39198', '41-39201' > to '41-39599', '44-34098' to '44-34776'); > A-26B-DT (205 built, USAAF Serials: '43-22252' to '43-22303', '43-22305' > to '43-22307', '43-22313' to '43-22345', '43-22350' to > '43-22466'); > A-26B (additional 423 (or 445) cancelled); > A-26C-DL (5 built, USAAF Serials: '41-39152', '41-39193', '41-39195', > '41-39199' and '41-39200'); > A-26C-DT (1086 built, USAAF Serials: '43-22304', '43-22308' to '43-22312', > '43-22346' to '43-22349', '43-22467' to '43-22751', '44-35198' > to '44-35562', '44-35564' to '44-35947', '44-35953', '44-35955', > '44-35957' to '44-35996'); > A-26C (additional 2809 cancelled, including: '44-34777' to '44-35197', > '44-35563', '44-35948' to '44-35952', '44-35954', '44-35956', > '44-35997' to '44-37996'); > FA-26C-DT (several A-26C-DT modified for Foto-Reconnaissance) > XA-26D-DL (1 A-26B-DL, completed as XA-26D, USAAF Serial: '44-34776'); > A-26D-DL (750 cancelled) > XA-26E-DT (1 A-26C-DT, modified to XA-26E); > A-26E-DT (1250 cancelled) > XA-26F-DL (1 A-26B-DL, modified to XA-26F, USAAF Serial: '44-34586'); > A-26G-DL (project only, based on A-26B-DL) > A-26H-DT (project only, based on A-26C-DT) > > In 1948 all surviving A-26 Invaders were redesignated as B-26 Invaders, at > which time all B-26 Marauders where already out of frontline service. The > USAF had abandoned the 'A' (Attack) designation series in 1948, but with the > introduction of McNamara's Joint Service Designation system in 1962, the 'A' > (Attack) series was re-introduced, originally covering only redesignated USN > types, but later also the A-26, A-37 and new designs. > > Together with later modifications of B-26 Invaders, the following new > designations existed after 1948: > > B-26B-DL (redesignation of all surviving A-26B-DL); > B-26B-DT (redesignation of all surviving A-26B-DT); > CB-26B (conversion of some B-26Bs as transporters); > RB-26B (conversion of some B-26Bs as reconnaissance aircraft, including: > '44-34159'); > TB-26B (conversion of some B-26Bs as trainers, including: '41-39182', > '41-39278', '41-39423', '41-39499', '41-39571', '44-34108', > '44-34156', '44-34184', '44-34401', '44-34411', '44-34450', > '44-34593', '44-34597', '44-34642'); > VB-26B (conversion of some B-26Bs as VIP (Very Important Person) or > staff transport aircraft, including: '44-34160', '44-34610', > '44-34616'); > B-26C-DL (redesignation of all surviving A-26C-DL); > B-26C-DT (redesignation of all surviving A-26C-DL); > DB-26C-DT (conversion of some B-26Cs as drone controllers); > EB-26C-DT (1 B-26C-DT modified for missile guidance tests, USAAF serial: > '44-35300'); > RB-26C-DT (new modifications of B-26C-DTs as reconnaissance aircraft, as > well as some redesignated FA-26C-DTs, including: '43-22502', > '44-35216', '44-35223', '44-35245', '44-35250', '44-35256' and > '44-35257', '44-35262', '44-35271', '44-35322', '44-35358' and > '44-35359', '44-35375', '44-35385', '44-35444', '44-35457', > '44-35490', '44-35500', '44-35512', '44-35559', '44-35582' and > '44-35583', '44-35599', '44-35606' and '44-35607', '44-35617', > '44-35621' and '44-35622', '44-35626', '44-35678' and '44-35679', > '44-35682', '44-35763', '44-35779', '44-35804', '44-35808', > '44-35813', '44-35822', '44-35858', '44-35889', '44-35938'); > TB-26C-DT (conversion of some B-26C-DTs as trainers, including: '43-22537', > '43-22546', '43-22624', '43-22657', '43-22710', '43-22724', > '44-35807', '44-35975'); > XB-26F-DL (1 redesignated XA-26F-DL, USAAF Serial: '44-34586'); > > During and after 1962, the following designations were added: > > DB-26J (USN JD-1Ds, redesignated 1962); > UB-26J (USN JD-1s, redesignated 1962); > YB-26K-OM (1 B-26C-DT (ex A-26C-DT) modified by On Mark, USAAF Serial: > '44-35634'); > B-26K-OM (40 B-26C and B-26D modified by On Mark, new USAF Serials: > '64-17640' to '64-17679'); > RB-26K-OM (several B-26K-OM modified for reconnaissance with glass nose, > including: '64-17643' and '64-17670'); > A-26A-OM (all B-26K and RB-26K, as well as about 30 similarly modified > B-26C and B-26D, were redesignated A-26A-OM on 04/31/1966); > A-26K (unofficial surrogate designation of B-26K and A-26A); > > The 'B-26G' designation was apparently not used for the Invader, maybe > because some B-26G-MA or TB-26G-MA Marauders were still in the inventory > in 1948, and the 'B-26H' was actually a Marauder, the ZXB-26H-MA > (redesignated in 1948, the 'Z' standing for 'obsolete'), which was the former > XB-26H-MA, originally built as TB-26G-20-MA, and modified to test the B-47 > (as well as B-48, B-51 and U-2) undercarriage configuration. > > Other Attack aircraft redesignated in the Bomber series in 1948 include: > > * Douglas XA-42-DO, which became the XB-42-DO; > * Convair XA-44-CO, which became the XB-53-CO; > * Martin XA-45-MA, which became the XB-51-MA; > > The first B-26 Invaders introduced in Vietnam, were from the batch of 110 > B-26B (solid nose), B-26C (glass nose) and RB-26Cs (photo reconnaissance) > aircraft, operated by the French Air Force (Armee de l'Air). They were > supplied by the USAF under MDAP (Mutual Defense Assistance Program), starting > on 11/04/1950, and were originally taken on charge by two Transport Groups > (Groupe de Transport): GT II/62 and GT II/64 'Anjou' at Tan Son Nhut, but > later equipped 3 Bomber Groups (Groupe de Bombardement): GB I/19 'Gascogne', > based at Tourane (later called Da Nang), GB I/25 'Tunisie', based at Cat Bi > and GB I/91 'Bourgogne', as well as 1 Reconnaissance Squadron (Escadrille de > Reconnaissance): ER II/19 'Armagnac' (later Escadrille de Reconnaissance > Photographique, ERP II/19). They flew 33,000 hours during 15,000 sorties, > dropping 19,000 tons of bombs between 1951 and 1954. The remaining Invaders > were returned to the USAF, when the French finally capitulated and left > Indochina. > > It wasn't until 10/11/1961, when 4 'RB-26' were deployed under the USAF's > 'Jungle Jim' program, with Detachment 2A of the 4400th CCTS (Combat Crew > Training Squadron), that the Invader returned to Vietnam. The unit was code > named 'Farm Gate' and was later redesignated 1st ACS (Air Commando Squadron, > Composite) under the 34th TG (Tactical Group), and initially operated also 8 > T-28s and 4 SC-47s. The RB-26 designation was a politically motivated ploy -- > the aircraft were solid nose attack planes and not glass nose reconnaissance > aircraft -- designed to avoid the appearance of contravening the 1955 peace > agreement, which didn't allow the introduction of bombers in the area. > > Those 'Farm Gate' B-26Cs and RB-26Cs (at least 16 different airframes) were > originally based at Bien Hoa AB, South Vietnam, but were later also flown > from detachments at Pleiku and Soc Trang. All 'Farm Gate' aircraft were flown > by US crews, but with South Vietnamese markings, and originally also carried > a Vietnamese 'observer' or 'passenger'. Their official purpose was training > South Vietnamese pilots, but their main occupation was low altitude bombing, > strafing and other COIN (Counter Insurgency) missions against the Viet Cong, > and also included convoy and UC-123B 'Ranch Hand' 'fighter' escorts. Their > operational use was relatively short lived, due to structural fatigue > problems with the WWII area airframes and wings, caused by high bomb loads > and rough runway surfaces. They were grounded on 02/11/1964, and all > survivors had returned to the CONUS (Continental USA) by 04/1964. > > Farm Gate B-26Cs (all were re-equipped with 6 or 8 gun B-26B noses, and had > 6 underwing pylons) included: '44-35335', '44-35530', '44-35703', '44-35855' > (?) (marked as '25855') -- assuming the serials shown are (mostly) accurate; > > Farm Gate RB-26Cs (with glass nose) included: '44-35585', '44-35813'; > > The last time Invaders fought over Vietnam and Laos, was from 06/08/1966 to > 11/09/1969. Deployed originally under Project 'Big Eagle' for evaluation of > night interdiction tactics, they were this time based at NKP (Nakhon Phanom > RTAFB [Royal Thai Air Force Base], aka 'Naked Fanny'), in Thailand, a unit > originally designated Detachment 9 of the 1st ACW (Air Commando Wing), > joining the 606th ACS. After the evaluation program was over (ending on > 01/13/1967), the A-26s stayed at NKP and were assigned to the 609th ACS, > established 09/15/1967, which became a unit of the 56th ACW, using the new > tail code 'TA'. The unit was later redesignated 609th SOS (Special Operations > Squadron) under the 56th SOW (Special Operations Wing). There original parent > unit in the USA was the 603rd SOS, of the 4410 CCTW (Combat Crew Training > Wing), based at England AFB, LA, using the tail code 'IF'. > > These On Mark A-26A Counter Invaders (which up to 04/30/1966 were designated > B-26K) usually used the callsign 'Nimrod'. There redesignation was probably > also due to political reasons, but because B-52s of the 307th SW (Strategic > Wing) were permanently based at U-Tapao RTAFB, also starting in 6/1966, that > redesignation was pretty meaningless. These A-26As were flying truck and gun > hunting missions over the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos, Cambodia, and South and > North Vietnam, in conjunction with O-2 'Nail' FACs (Forward Air Controllers), > C-130A 'Blind Bat' and 'Lamplighter' as well as C-123K 'Candlestick' > flareships. Other missions included CAS (Close Air Support) at Khe Sanh. > > During this time frame (1960 to 1970), CIA-operated Invaders could also be > found in the SEA (South East Asia) theater, like in many other parts of the > world -- Cuba, the Congo and Indonesia being some examples. At least 4 Air > America-operated B-26Bs (painted black overall, without national insignia) > arrived during 12/1960 in Thailand, and at least 12 B-26B and B-26Cs (left in > natural metallic, and also without any national insignia), followed later in > 1961, all coming in from Taiwan and being based at Takhli RTAFB, Thailand. > In addition, some On Mark-modified, civilian registered B-26 VIP transports > were used, including a Marksman B (?), registered 'N46598', painted blue > overall with white stripes, sporting an elongated nose, rectangular passenger > windows, a rear cargo door, weather radar and wingtip tanks, which was > possibly used in 1967 for air drops over Laos. All of those aircraft were > CIA-owned aircraft, flown by ex-USAF and mercenary pilots but not assigned to > or associated with any USAF unit. > > - -- Andreas [exhausted] > > - --- --- > Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org > 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu > Flint, MI 48502-1239 > Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ > - --- --- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:23:26 -0500 (EST) > From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl > Subject: Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito > > Steve Hofer wrote: > > >I recall reading ages ago that the British Mosquito of WWII fame had an > >especially low RCS (radar cross-section) because of its shape and > >mostly-wood construction. Does anyone have any information to elaborate > >on this? > > The wood would give a low radar return, but the engines and other parts > would glow like a beacon. The Windecker YE-5A (USAF Serial '73-1653'), which > was based on the all composite light plane Windecker Eagle, was transparent > to radar, but needed a lot of RAM to hide the engine, instruments, cables, > landing gear, and even the pilot. Radar transparency alone is principally > BAD for stealth. > > >Another WWII era craft that looks like it would have a low RCS is the > >MacDonnell Bat (XP-85 I believe), a twin-engined prototype fighter with > >engine nacelles recessed into the wings. If you have have information on > >the RCS of this plane, then you deserve the highest ranking as aviation > >trivialogist. > > I doubt that McDonnell would have made any RCS measurements on the XP-67 > 'Bat' (USAAF Serial '42-11677') in 1944/45, I would even venture as far as > to say that neither the USAAF nor any aircraft manufacturer had the ability > or knowledge to make any RCS measurements at that time. (BTW, the two > McDonnell XP-85 / XF-85 Goblins were small parasite fighters, intended for > the B-36, USAAF Serials '46-523' and '46-524'.) > > Even if they would have made measurements, the RCS of an aircraft (or any > other thing, for that matter), "depends". There is no one single number for > RCS. The RCS varies greatly with aspect -- it might be very big from one > angle and very small from another. It also varies with frequency -- each > radar wavelength would have to be measured separately. What you get at the > end are many, many numbers, which describe how big the radar return is from > any given angle (and distance), and by any given radar, of the aircraft in > a particular configuration. And changing the configuration, like uncovered > seams or an extended antenna, might totally change the results, too. > > In short, there is no absolute RCS figure. But you can of course compare two > aircraft in the same configuration -- same angle, same radar, etc. -- and > then say, e.g.: "The F-117A has (in average) a 2 times bigger RCS than the > B-2A." or something similar. But you can't (truthfully) say the RCS of the > XP-67 is 1.3 m2 (or whatever value and unit you might prefer). > > But of course, I made the whole thing up, and can't prove a single word > (regarding RCS measurements, that is). > > - -- Andreas > > - --- --- > Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org > 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu > Flint, MI 48502-1239 > Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ > - --- --- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:46:05 -0800 (PST) > From: David Lednicer > Subject: Ramblings... > > I was told that the Mosquito actually had a conventional RCS due > to the engine firewalls. It is hard to make them out of anything but > metal (at least this was the case back then). > > As to the question: > > Maybe someone has one or the other book, or can comment on Dr. David > > Baker (or his background) in general? > > From the articles I have read of his, I get the impression that he > knows just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be useful. His > articles are full of inaccuracies and wild guessing. > > On a side note: Andreas its good to see you back! I sent the > Bolkow article to Air International/Air Enthusiast and they are showing > interest in publishing it. The trouble is I was never able to get ahold > of Herr Bolkow to get a copyright release. Maybe they'll have more luck. > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------- > David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" > Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com > 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 > Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:38:39 -0500 (EST) > From: Mary Shafer > Subject: Re: Dr. David Baker > > This subject line surprised me--Dr. David Baker is my oral and > maxillofacial surgeon. He did my bone transplants and dental implants. > > Needless to say, we're talking about different Dr. David Bakers, but since > I'd been in to see mine this morning, showing off my implant crowns now > that the braces are off, I was pretty startled to see the subject line. > > It sounds like that Dr. David Baker isn't much of an author, but my Dr. > David Baker is really great. Next time you're thinking about a dental > implant, keep him in mind. (And wear seat and shoulder belts so you won't > have to think about them, OK? Thirty years was a long time to be missing > my front teeth, partial plate or no partial plate.) > > Regards, > Mary > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html > "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard > Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 13:00:52 +1200 (NZST) > From: Kerry Ferrand > Subject: Re: Dr. David Baker > > On Fri, 27 Mar 1998, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > > > I was asked where the 'infamous' Dr. David Baker gets his information, but > > I must say, I don't know. I assume the usual sources -- other publications, > > books, magazines, etc., and maybe some additional input from his work at > > NASA or the aerospace industry -- he has supposedly worked on the Space > > Shuttle from 1970 to 1986, according to a blurb in Air International. The > > topic was discussed (without any specific result) on the Skunk Works List > > before (see below). > > > > Maybe someone has one or the other book, or can comment on Dr. David Baker > > (or his background) in general? > > > > > > Rocket: The History and Development of Rocket and Missile Technology (276P) > > David Baker / Published 1981 > > (Hard to Find) > > > > The rocket : the history and development of rocket & missile technology > > David Baker > > (Hard to Find) > > > > I have a copy of this one that used to belong to the British Army Hong > Kong garrison's Library (an enterprising local businessman bought up all > of the library books before the Brits pulled out and shipped them down > here for a 'flea-sale')..as you might expect they a had an excellent > collection of military technology books. > Its a large format volume of the type you usually only find in libraries, > a quite detailed (lots of dates & places) but not over-technical history > of civil & military rocketry from ancient China to circa 1977. There's a > large fold-out section with images of rocket-powered aircraft on one side. > My copy says its a first edition, dated 1978, the author is listed as > "David Baker, Ph.D". > On the back cover there's a photo of Dr.. Baker and a little biography: > (some bits snipped) > > "David Baker, born in Holbeach, Licolnshire, England has always had his > feet firmly rooted in 'space'. .He possesses that rare quality of being > able to communicate highly technical facts with a clarity and enthusisasm > that in no way undermines his very considerable scholarship in matters > related to rocketry and astrophysics" [goes on with the adulation a bit..] > .. > The author received a formal education in Science and specilaized in > Earth & Planetary Physics. He has a long association with NASA and has > secured qualifications in manned flight planning operations. His formal > professional qualifications include a BSc in astrophysics, a PhD for work > on the evolution of the Solar System and a diploma in astronautics, all > read at Rice University, Texas, the latter based on info freely supplied > by the LBJ space centre in Huston. David Baker is currently (1978) a > tutor in Astromony at Nottingham University [snip] > ...fellow of the BIS, contributor to Flight International and Spaceflight > magazines. > In his professional capacity he has been associated with the space > programmes of Europe and the US, having been comissioned to perform > studies of potential spacestation operations. He is also a Technical > Consultant to several military intelligence services.. > [snip..more adulation stuff]" > > Kerry > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:01:42 -0500 (EST) > From: Mary Shafer > Subject: Re: Dr. David Baker > > Oops. My dear friends on the mailing list, please forgive me for > cluttering your mailboxes with a misdirected bit of off-charter > chattiness. I wasn't watcing my mailer as closely as I should have been. > > That was supposed to be a private reply, not a broadcast message. But the > part about wearing seat and shoulder belts is true for everyone. Trust me > on that. > > Apologetically, > Mary > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html > "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard > Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 17:30:34 -0800 > From: patrick > Subject: In My Humble Opinion: > > At 04:18 PM 3/27/98 -0500, you wrote: > >James P. Stevenson asked: > > > >>(A) Where the F-117 designation came from; and > > > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > - ---------------------------------- > It seems to me an academic adventure to apply logic and reason as to how > the DoD (USAF) assigns names and numbers to their aircraft. There appear > to be more exceptions and aberrations and in some cases outright deceptive > practices that far outweigh any DoD procedure. (or guideline?) > > If your concerned about why the F-117 is an "F" and not an "A", consider > this too when you got the letter figured out. They went in at sometime in > the program and pulled all the correct serial numbers from successive years > so as to have them all in consecutive order. An interesting feat in light > of the fact that the build number changed constantly. Try to find that > procedure! > > Point is they do what is politically(?) correct at the time. Remember the > Golden Rule. > > As far as the source of the number 117, it still remains the best kept > secret of the program. > > Regarding the RCS of WW2 airplanes I don't know what the early radar > engineers had dreams of but keep in mind it wasn't until the sixties that > Lockheed learned how to calculate 2 dimensional returns of radar signals. > And the first outdoor RCS range was not built until General Dynamics did so > in conjunction with its TFX-111 program during a similar time period. GD > later went on to build the RATSCAT range at White Sands Missile Range and > operated that RCS range for a number of years. > > Andreas I think you are very close with your RCS comments but I believe at > some point an actual theoretical number is assigned in testing. They would > have to in order to do A/B testing. It would of course assume most > variables removed such as "with this size model, oriented in this axis, > mounted on a pole of this construction, this height and distance from the > antenna. And more standards regarding RF power frequency, phase, etc. > being equal, then the model exhibits this value for a RCS return. But I > agree it cannot be an absolute value. > > In fact Lockheed beat Northrop to win the SENIOR TREND contract by simply > putting their model on a pole at RATSCAT and demonstrating that its RCS was > slightly lower than the XST design of Northrop. > > patrick cullumber > patrick@e-z.net > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:16:23 +0900 > From: "James Matthews" > Subject: Andreas. > > This isn't skunky...I'm just curious. Andreas: How do you know so much?! > Ok, that's it. Bye for now :) > > James. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:51:27 -0500 > From: "James P. Stevenson" > Subject: F-117 designation > > > > > > > F-117 designation > > > >
To all,
>

>
I have sent the FAX below to a high ranking individual in the > Air Force who worked on the F-117 program. I have a telephone > interview with in the near future.
>

>
If any of you believe that I have left out anything significant, > please let me know no later than April 5, 1998.
>

>
Thanks,
>

>
Jim Stevenson
>

>
I am working on an article on aircraft > designations. I have some questions regarding the F-117 designation. > Paul Kaminski suggested I contact you regarding them.
>

> According to DoD Directive 4120.15-L, all aircraft should have a > "basic mission" designation which can include "X" for experimental or > "Y" for prototype.
>

> 1. Did the "Have Blue" aircraft ever have a Mission Designation? If > not, why not?
>

> 2. Did the "Tacit Blue" aircraft ever have a Mission Designation? If > not, why not?
>

> I understand that the pilots who flew the foreign aircraft in the > desert used F-112 through F-116 to be able to record the time in > their log books. I also understand that pilots of Senior Trend used, > in that same tradition, F-117 in their log books. (If I am incorrect, > please let me know.)
>

> 3. My question is why did the Air Force continue with the F-117 > designation once the aircraft became public instead of using the next > "design number" as required by the DoD Directive 4120.15-L, such as > the F-19?
>

> 4. Did the Air Force obtain a waiver from adhering to DoD Directive > 4120.15-L by not using the next "design number?"
>

> In 1964, the definition of a fighter in the DoD Directive was an > "aircraft designed to intercept and destroy other aircraft and/or > missiles."1/ An attack aircraft, on the other hand, was defined as an > "aircraft designed to search out, attack, and destroy enemy land or > sea targets using conventional or special weapons. Also used for > interdiction and close air support missions."2/ By 1967, the > definition of a fighter had expanded and included the function of an > attack aircraft. The attack definition, however, had not changed. > Both definitions have remained consistent to the > present.3/
>

> 5. If you will accept that I have correctly corrected cited the DoD > Directive on designations; and that I understand that the Air Force > considered putting AIM-9s on the F-117, why did the Air Force not > designate the F-117 as an "attack" aircraft since it has no > air-to-air capability?
>

>

>
1/ U.S. Department of Defense. Department > of the Air Force. "Releasable data on USAF Aerospace Vehicles." AFP > 190-2-2 (Aerospace Information Handbook. Vol. III. (June 1964): > (Washington, D.C.: [Government Printing Office]): 2.
> 2/ Ibid.
> 3/ U.S. Department of Defense. "Designating and Naming Defense > Equipment: Military Aerospace Vehicles." AFR 82-1/AR > 70-50C1/NAVAIRINST 8800.3C1(20 July 1990):10
>
> >
**********************************************
> James P. Stevenson
> E-mail Addr ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #21 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner